Edwards: Israel greatest short-term threat to world peace Update: Edwards responds

posted at 1:44 pm on February 20, 2007 by Ian

Man, he is really trying to pitch out to the anti-Christian and anti-Semitic crowd:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

More at Hillary Watch.

Update: Edwards says Israel NOT a threat to world peace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Edwards is veering far left. This is the beginning of the end.

p0s3r on February 20, 2007 at 1:49 PM

The begining of the end? His campaign just hit bottom and is drilling hard!

Who the frak is advising him?!

Defector01 on February 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Maybe he should have kept Amanda after all.

right2bright on February 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Ian you really know how to punch my button.

I consider myself and ‘ol Glory’ American but I will tell you this: When America abandons Israel I will gladly fly the blue and white in my yard.

Call me a Zionist. Call me a traitor.

Edwards….Kiss my ass.

Limerick on February 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM

A country defending itself is the biggest threat to our way of life. Idiot!

sunny on February 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Maybe he should have kept Amanda after all.

right2bright on February 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Yep. Now he’s got no one to throw under the bus.

Dusty on February 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Edwards to brain:

“Is this thing on?”

fogw on February 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Sorry, I was wrong to say that. He’ll always have Elizabeth.

Dusty on February 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Yes, we can call Mr. aggressively photogenic a bigot.

INC on February 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Edwards brain: ” You can stay but I’m getting the hell out of here”

x95b10 on February 20, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Edwards also said this the other week:

We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel’s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO’s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.

It goes without saying that he was speaking before a different audience. He’s like Echo and Narcissus combined in one person.

rw on February 20, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Is johnnie edwardscum really relavent…???…Who actually pays attention to this MORON…???

areseaoh on February 20, 2007 at 2:10 PM

It goes without saying that he was speaking before a different audience. He’s like Echo and Narcissus combined in one person.

rw

He learnt well from John Kerry

Defector01 on February 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM

I’m as pro-Israel as they come, but calling him a bigot isn’t really accurate and it misses the point. He’s just saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear — just as he said all options are on the table when he spoke in Israel. He doesn’t believe any of this stuff. Any version of it.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 20, 2007 at 2:15 PM

When America abandons Israel I will gladly fly the blue and white in my yard.

Call me a Zionist. Call me a traitor.

Edwards….Kiss my ass.

Limerick on February 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM

I genuinely fear for the day that America abandons Israel. On that day we will cease to be a blessed nation.

infidel4life on February 20, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Two more years of this?

Between Edwards “the Breck Girl”, Murtha “Mr. Depends”, “The Pink Pant Suit”, “The Chain Hussein Smoker”, John “don’t Fence me in” Mcain, Rudy “forgetttaboutit…” Gulliani, I am going to make a fortune with my “Vomit Buckets!”

“Get em heeeeeeerrrrRRRRREEEEEE!”

PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace….

Since when have we had world peace?

James on February 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM

I’m no fan of the Prettiest Candidate, but I think you’re taking this out of context. He doesn’t say Israel is the biggest threat to world peace, but that Israel attacking Iran would be the biggest threat.

He’s not entirely wrong. If al-Qaeda attacks us again, who’s really going to care for more than two weeks? England. Israel. Australia. Who else? Nobody new is going to get involved in the fight.

But if Israel attacks Iran, not only is the whole Middle East going to flip out, but every already-anti-Semitic country in the world, and the entire population of the UN, is going to go ballistic too (was that redundant?).

What else is going to effect (whole!) world peace more than that?

Tanya on February 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM

(donning my tinfoil hat)

Horse poop. Edwards didn’t say that. I want to see video. Seriously, it’s not possible: nobody (in general) and no politician (period) is dumb to believe that in the first place (or to completely miss the hilarious irony in such a statement); and no politician is foolish enough to say it out loud.

I want video. Even the leftist of lefties can’t be this clueless …. can they?

(crickets chirp really, really loudly)

(removing tinfoil hat)

Joking aside, it is hard to believe. I want to make sure I understand Edward’s thinking:

Let’s say I have a nearby neighbor, in a much larger house, who openly hates me. And he has lots of other friends, all over my little suburb. He’s much, much bigger than me, and he has a history of absolute insanity and violence. He’s either directly or indirectly attacked me many times, or helped those who have, or at the very least cheered them on.

He’s now very busily and very publicly building giant weapons, targeted at my house, and he’s swearing to use them. He claims that I’m a pig or a monkey, and that it’s actually God Himself telling him to kill me and my family as soon as possible.

Now … let me make sure I understand … if I decide to do something to prevent my promised destruction, it’s ME that’s the biggest threat in the neighborhood.

Sigh. Am I right in guessing that if I was unthinkingly liberal, this might make more sense?

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Thank you, Professor.

Tanya on February 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I guess it’s see the mushroom cloud first, then do something about it.

KelliD on February 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM

The begining of the end? His campaign just hit bottom and is drilling hard!

Who the frak is advising him?!

Defector01 on February 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Probably Jimmy Carter.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 2:46 PM

I caught this Edwards drivel this morning and have it in Iran’s Path to Ruin. Mostly related to the latest Iran developments, but I couldn’t help notive what a lightweight the Breck Girl is.

BTW, it sure looks like Mrs. SiIlky Pony was behind hiring Marcotte and McEwan. She’s a fullblown Koskid and DUmmie, it appears.

JammieWearingFool on February 20, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities

SO you gotta wonder what he thinks about our plans to bomb the mullahs.

Iblis on February 20, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Let’s say I have a nearby neighbor, in a much larger house, who openly hates me. And he has lots of other friends, all over my little suburb. He’s much, much bigger than me, and he has a history of absolute insanity and violence. He’s either directly or indirectly attacked me many times, or helped those who have, or at the very least cheered them on.

He’s now very busily and very publicly building giant weapons, targeted at my house, and he’s swearing to use them. He claims that I’m a pig or a monkey, and that it’s actually God Himself telling him to kill me and my family as soon as possible.

Now … let me make sure I understand … if I decide to do something to prevent my promised destruction, it’s ME that’s the biggest threat in the neighborhood.

Sigh. Am I right in guessing that if I was unthinkingly liberal, this might make more sense?

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Read Bob Dylan’s lyrics to the song “Neigborhood Bully,” and it pretty much expresses your same thoughts.

The begining of the end? His campaign just hit bottom and is drilling hard!

Who the frak is advising him?!

Defector01 on February 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Couldn’t have said it any better!

asc85 on February 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Well. Southerners are racist after all, right? So its almost expected he’d say something like that. Surprised he didn’t just come out and say that they are a little too brown for him too.

lorien1973 on February 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM

His campaign just hit bottom

I won’t believe that. There’s still far too much fun to be had at Edwards’ expense. It just can’t be over. What’s he suppose to do? Chase more ambulances?

Mojave Mark on February 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM

The begining of the end? His campaign just hit bottom and is drilling hard!

Here’s the deal. And AP made the point yesterday.

Given the leftist candidates today and how shrill and delusional they are, Hillary looks palatable in comparison doesn’t she? The further left they do, they drag everyone with them, until, Bill Clinton is a decent fellow and someone you could tolerate in the White House.

And here we are, agreeing with the concept. It’s pretty brilliant, actually.

lorien1973 on February 20, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Now … let me make sure I understand … if I decide to do something to prevent my promised destruction, it’s ME that’s the biggest threat in the neighborhood.

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Not the biggest threat to your neighborhood. The biggest threat to the peace in your neighborhood.

Sometimes peace isn’t the most important thing. But you don’t really expect liberals to see it that way, do you?

Tanya on February 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Now … let me make sure I understand … if I decide to do something to prevent my promised destruction, it’s ME that’s the biggest threat in the neighborhood.

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Not the biggest threat to your neighborhood. The biggest threat to the peace in your neighborhood.

Sometimes peace isn’t the most important thing. But you don’t really expect liberals to see it that way, do you?

Tanya on February 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

You have to think about the collective, not just yourself.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Dear Hot Air:

I have no chance in hell of getting the 2008 Democratic Party nomination, but I still have a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, excuse me while I retire to my private America. Try to stay in yours.

Best Regards,

Silky Pony, Esq.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 20, 2007 at 3:03 PM

it’s great watching dems commit political suicide.

One Angry Christian on February 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Well, at least he didn’t say America is the greatest short-term or long-term threat to world peace! Perchance his next speech?

Oxybeles on February 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Stupid comment to be sure, but you guys aren’t afraid to throw out that bigot label when it suits you, eh? At what point does he say they are teh threat because they are a Jewish state?

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 3:19 PM

He doesn’t say Israel is the biggest threat to world peace, but that Israel attacking Iran would be the biggest threat.

He’s not entirely wrong.

Edwards is completely wrong.

You seem to forget that Israel has been attacked several times by the Arab countries in the last 50 years and is still being attacked by various Arab factions. Those factions have the support of several Arab countries, both in political and material support. Edwards is ignoring the terror campaign that most of the middle east has been waging on Israel for several decades.

The nation of Israel has been under attack since it was founded, yet Edwards says the biggest threat to peace could be Israel? That’s BS. Iran has openly stated their intention to destroy Israel, as have several other countries in the middle east.

Israel is not a threat to peace in th middle east. The biggest threat to peace in the middle east are the countries that are waging war on Israel and openly call for Israel’s destruction, not the other way around.

RedinBlueCounty on February 20, 2007 at 3:20 PM

He’s like Echo and Narcissus combined in one person.

LOL. You just don’t see good mythologically-based smackdowns like that anymore.

Dudley Smith on February 20, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Stupid comment to be sure, but you guys aren’t afraid to throw out that bigot label when it suits you, eh? At what point does he say they are teh threat because they are a Jewish state?

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 3:19 PM

You are playing the spin game, SouthernDem. How is it that Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, but yet are the ones that are constantly being threatened with total destruction? What could possibly be motivating Edwards to make such stupid remarks?

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM

You really think the attacks on Israel affect the peace in any country other than Israel? Really?

Right, because Saudi might have to do some angry finger-wagging if Tel Aviv was bombed to ashes. Germany might even shake their head in dismay for ten seconds. And don’t get me started on France.

Tanya on February 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM

RedinBlueCounty on February 20, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Excellent comment.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Right, because Saudi might have to do some angry finger-wagging if Tel Aviv was bombed to ashes.

They’ll be heartbroken, I tell you! Heartbroken!

Allahpundit on February 20, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Let’s say I have a nearby neighbor, in a much larger house, who openly hates me. . . He’s now very busily and very publicly building giant weapons, targeted at my house, and he’s swearing to use them. He claims that I’m a pig or a monkey, and that it’s actually God Himself telling him to kill me and my family as soon as possible.

Great analogy. I just need to know in order to fully get the picture–are you mowing his lawn?

I consider myself and ‘ol Glory’ American but I will tell you this: When America abandons Israel I will gladly fly the blue and white in my yard.

smellthecoffee on February 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM

or the endless references in school lessons to Jews and Christians as “descendants of pigs and monkeys

As in pigs and monkeys together, or Jews came from pigs and Christians from monkeys (or vice-versa)??

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 3:44 PM

What could possibly be motivating Edwards to make such stupid remarks?

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM

I’m not playing a spin game, as I am not an Edwards supporter (nor any other Dem candidate right now, if it matters).
But 1) I have a hard time believing Edwards is an anti-Semite and has been covering up all this time (unless there is other evidence I’m missing) and
2) Don’t Conservatives hate PC policing and freely handing out the “bigot” card?

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 3:45 PM

2) Don’t Conservatives hate PC policing and freely handing out the “bigot” card?

Sure conservatives do however I think the point that is being made is that they (Libs) make the same crazy accusations and take things out of context as a standard practice. That is to say that by default conservatives are bigots and the MSM gives them a pass on comments like this.

x95b10 on February 20, 2007 at 3:54 PM

2) Don’t Conservatives hate PC policing and freely handing out the “bigot” card?

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Yes, but other than INC up at the top of the comments section, I don’t think anyone else has referred to him as a bigot. The point here (in my opinion) is that there are double standards at play – if a Republican made comments similar to what Edwards said, and had hired someone like Marcotte, you can rest assured that that Republican would be labeled as the biggest racist/bigot since the Jim Crowe days – Edwards, on the other hand, has to a certain extent gotten a pass on all of this. Yes, he fired the two hate-filled bloggers, but he really didn’t get grilled for it by the MSM – it was more to get some of the Christian vote. The guy portrays himself as a southern Dem – he can’t completely alienate everybody.

Although, I do think Hillary will use all of this as ammo against Edwards.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 4:01 PM

OOPS! It was supposed to be like this. . .

I consider myself an ‘ol Glory’ American but I will tell you this: When America abandons Israel I will gladly fly the blue and white in my yard.

And I meant to add (before my computer “auto-sent” my freakin’ post) right on Limerick!! Thanks for the do or die support. Too bad there are still a lot of Jews who are suspicious of non-Jewish, esp. Christian help. These are mostly the same morons who continue to vote Democrat.

I’ll never forget that rally in DC a few years back, (spring of ’04, I believe) when they got like 150,000 people on two weeks notice, and this little bitty lady, 5 feet tall in heels and probably a buck 0-5 soaking wet, one of the big Christian broadcasters (whose name I don’t recall), gets up there, she’s right up on top of the mic, and she hollers, “WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP THE GOLAN!!!” IT was like she had taken mic use lesson from the Black Panthers. This reverberates all over the place for a while and then everybody roars approval, and then I’m thinking “We? Who is we?” Then something clicked in my brain and I’m like, “Yeah, f***ing-A WE!!” Israel cannot go it alone, and anyone who thinks they can doesn’t realize that Israel hasn’t been going it alone for decades, probably since Carter (may he contract mad cow disease so the bizarre condition of his brain won’t confound the coroner upon his inevitable demise). Israel and the US ought to be hand in glove in this fight, and if it weren’t for the State Dept, they proabably would be. Was it Vince Lombardi who said, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.”

smellthecoffee on February 20, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Just when I think that the Edwards’ campaign has sunk to the bottom of the barrel, the Silky Pony reminds me that there’s usually something under the barrel.

Now that he’s got the anti-Semitic vote sewed, maybe Edwards will grab the anti-brown man vote.

Physics Geek on February 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM

other than INC up at the top of the comments section

Feb 20, 2007 1:44 PM by Ian
45 Comments » | 0 Trackbacks

Can we call him a bigot now?

he is really trying to pitch out to the anti-Christian and anti-Semitic crowd

The home page was what I was referring to, maybe I’m missing some sarcasm here. I agree with what you’re saying, and I’ve said before Marcotte’s comments were bigoted.

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I have to agree with what several others here have written. He did not say that Israel was the threat, but the action Israel might take is the threat. That does not make Israel the threatener of the peace, just the ramifications of their action. As someone else said, there are other things worse than not having peace. Why doesn’t some politician just come out and say what many people think “Let’s hope Israel bombs the snot out of Iran’s nuke facilities. That would be an act of self defense. If ANY camel jockey country tries to do anything that is considered retaliation for the bombing then they will have to answer to the USA, England, Australia and anyone else that wants to come to the defense of Israel”. That is what many of us are thinking and wanting and perhaps a true all out war in that part of the world will put a smack down so hard on those barbarians, it will take them a few more centuries to return to rock throwing status.

rayvet on February 20, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Next: Enrique comments on how Hezbolla kicked IA’s butt…
in 3-2-1…….

Limerick on February 20, 2007 at 4:20 PM

The home page was what I was referring to, maybe I’m missing some sarcasm here.

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I see it as sarcasm, but I’ll let Ian answer that.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 4:31 PM

He did not say that Israel was the threat, but the action Israel might take is the threat.

Israel has been under attack for decades, so where is the “peace” that may be threatened by Israel?

RedinBlueCounty on February 20, 2007 at 4:36 PM

RedinBlue, I see you’re point and agree to a certain degree, but Peace can be seen as relative. Before I make the next comment let me say, I am behind Israel’s actions, whatever they may be to protect itself. But here’s the deal, if we think there’s lack “peace” over there now (which I do), if Israel were to bomb Iran, the entire region, in my opinion, would explode like a tinderbox. As I mentioned earlier, I kind of hope this happens. But the bottom line is Edwards has some room to squirm with his comments because I for one didn’t interpret it as anti-semitic or anti-christian.

rayvet on February 20, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Other great threats to World Peace according to Edwards:

#2: George W. Bush

#3: The U.S. Military

#4: American Automobiles

#5: Civilian Firearms

Yes, Edwards is now officially a bigot and an anti-Semite!!

gmaninatl on February 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM

But the bottom line is Edwards has some room to squirm with his comments

Edwards has no wiggle room at all as he is looking to place the blame fully on Israel and not on the Arab factions and governments that are causing the problem. I’m not saying that Edwards is anti-semitic, but he is pandering to those that do not support Israel when he makes these types of statements. He is also incorrect.

Edwards stated than an attack on Iran’s nuclear technology by Israel would be a threat to peace but that is wrong. Any such attack can not be considered a “threat to peace” as Iran has already threatened Israel with total destruction and is attempting to acquire theology which could be used to carry out their threat. Any attack by Israel would be in response to the threat that already exists. It is Iran and its attempt to acquire nuclear technology that is a threat to peace in the middle east, not Israel.

People keep looking to blame Israel for the lack of peace in the middle east yet it is not Israel that is to blame, it is the rest of the middle east.

RedinBlueCounty on February 20, 2007 at 6:09 PM

SouthernDem:

Is he a bigot? I dunno. Don’t really care, either. Maybe you’re right; maybe we ought to be a bit more careful with that word. Save it for the Mad Marcotte’s – the unquestionable, undeniable bigots.

But you gotta admit the others have a point: how exactly DO you explain the behavior of some people towards Israel … if you don’t consider the curious fact that it’s a Jewish state?

Maybe there’s an answer. Again, I dunno. And Edwards is definitely not the biggest Jew hater on the left, that’s for sure.

But you MUST admit that a lot of liberals attack Israel awfully freely and with strange viciousness …. even with specifically anti-Semitic comments. So my point is simple: while I might not personally attach the “bigot” label to Edwards, whenever someone makes comments like that about Israel, comments that just make no sense … Occam’s Razor suggests that you really ought to consider anti-Semitism as the motive.

It is, after all, the simple and obvious answer. Take away the bigotry, and the anti-Israeli zealotry makes no sense.

Include the bigotry … and suddenly it’s crystal clear.

How’s this: while it might not be fair to paint Edwards with the bigot brush … it’s equally not fair to completely not consider possible bigotry.

Isn’t that logical? Please correct me if I’m wrong. Seems simple to me.

As for me, I contend that Edwards is an empty-headed buffoonish twit. And I think his comments support that 100%. Whether he’s a bigot or not doesn’t really help his case. He’s a dumbass. Period.

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM

He’s a dumbass. Period.

I couldn’t agree more!

RedinBlueCounty on February 20, 2007 at 6:22 PM

RedinBlue, I see you’re point and agree to a certain degree, but Peace can be seen as relative. Before I make the next comment let me say, I am behind Israel’s actions, whatever they may be to protect itself. But here’s the deal, if we think there’s lack “peace” over there now (which I do), if Israel were to bomb Iran, the entire region, in my opinion, would explode like a tinderbox. As I mentioned earlier, I kind of hope this happens. But the bottom line is Edwards has some room to squirm with his comments because I for one didn’t interpret it as anti-semitic or anti-christian.

rayvet on February 20, 2007 at 5:18 PM

What do you think would happen if Iran attacked Israel? I think Iran, right now, is the biggest threat to the entire region.

What gets me is that Edwards said Israel is the threat, when they are the ones being constantly threatened and attacked. Israel is not the one making threats to its neighbors. Does Israel have a plan to protect itself? I’m sure they do – they’d be stupid not to, but they aren’t pushing everybody around over there (unless they get pushed first).

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I do see your point, but if you’re applying Occam’s Razor, I’d have to say the simplest solution would be he’s pandering to the far left, as their is little evidence pointing toward anti-semitism.

a lot of liberals attack Israel awfully freely and with strange viciousness …. even with specifically anti-Semitic comments.

Hanging around liberals, I’ve never heard the opinion that Israel is bad because they’re Jews. Typically, it’s a moronic thought process attributed to Israel being oppressive toward the Palesitinians.

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Hanging around liberals, I’ve never heard the opinion that Israel is bad because they’re Jews. Typically, it’s a moronic thought process attributed to Israel being oppressive toward the Palesitinians.

SouthernDem on February 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

What do they say about radical muslims that are oppressive towards women, hate jews, hate Christians, and teach their children to hate? Do they realize that Jews and Christians are oppressed in many of these Muslim countries?

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Israel being oppressive???

Well if you had barbarians blowing themselves up in your neighborhood, if you had school kids being taught you are monkeys and pigs etc. If in a negotiated peace settlement you gave over 90 % of what your sworn enemy wanted and they refused it, even to the point of not changing a charter that calls for the destruction of your country. Get the point or to I need to continue.

When the Palenstinians love their children more than they Hate Israel then there will be peace. (Golda Mier)

robo on February 20, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Here is the part of the story that has been erased:

The United Nations partition of Palestine EXCLUDED Jerusalem from the State of Israel. Israel AGREED. Then the Arab League attacked Israel and she, like EVERY NATION, secured herself by force of arms.

Oh…yeah…it’s Israels fault. I forgot.

The pre 67 borders? Yeah right. We could move Israel to Greenland and the Islamists would carry on as before.

Edwards is simply doing what his nature tells him to do:
Cheat and lie. He isn’t a bigot. He is a Ahole.

Limerick on February 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Well then who is worse, Bush or Israel? And whose fault is it?

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Before: “Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

After: “Edwards’ spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

Just another botched joke, no doubt.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 20, 2007 at 9:07 PM

I don’t like Edwards at all, but if you take that statement in a diffent context it makes sense.

What would happen to world peace if Isreal bombed ANY Muslim nation for ANY reason? Even if they were justified, I believe the Muslims would go crazy (crazier than they already are, IF that is possible).

World peace would less effected if the US were to bomb the same target for the same reason. This was the rational behind Isreal NOT retailiating during the Gulf War I SCUD attacks. The coalition forces took care of the threat to Isreal while they took attack after attack.

csdeven on February 20, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Attila, he was for Israel (attacking Iran) being a threat to world peace, before he was against it.

SouthernDem is right – he’s pandering to the far left. Unfortunately all the candidates, when placating one silly group, alienate another. Politics is not for the weak, especially not for the spineless worms or jellyfish with no convictions, and only fingers in the wind.

He’s also placating the U.N., the Arabs, the Europeans, etc. He also knows that most Jews will vote for the liberal candidate, no matter what he/she says.

Entelechy on February 20, 2007 at 9:59 PM

I’ve revisited the thread after being gone most of the day. I will be more careful about being flip with the word bigot. I should have been more judicious.

However, I entirely agree with this snippet from Prof B’s 6:11 PM comments:

But you MUST admit that a lot of liberals attack Israel awfully freely and with strange viciousness …. even with specifically anti-Semitic comments. So my point is simple: while I might not personally attach the “bigot” label to Edwards, whenever someone makes comments like that about Israel, comments that just make no sense … Occam’s Razor suggests that you really ought to consider anti-Semitism as the motive.

It is, after all, the simple and obvious answer. Take away the bigotry, and the anti-Israeli zealotry makes no sense.

Include the bigotry … and suddenly it’s crystal clear.

Remember that Michigan Democrat, David Bonior, one of the Baghdad Democrats of 2002, is Edwards’ campaign manager. He’s certainly one of the last people to choose for that position if a candidate wanted to present any picture of semblance of fairness to Israel.

INC on February 20, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Gee, not one word about Iranian threats to Israel’s existence? Edwards, you stupid @$$! I’d have expected something like this from Jimmah Cah-tuh.

SpartRan on February 20, 2007 at 11:36 PM

BTW, John, you and Jimmah just keep shooting off your stupid mouths, and we’ll see what happens to the Jewish vote you and the other idiots in your party take for granted.

SpartRan on February 20, 2007 at 11:42 PM

If Edwards somehow gets the nomination, then the RNC *MUST* use this against him. Especially in media markets like large cities such as New York and Chicago.

This statement is a candidate killer.

georgej on February 21, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Since when have we had world peace?

James on February 20, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Like Rush says,”liberals think peace is the absence of war, not the absence of enemies.”

Buck Turgidson on February 21, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Attila, he was for Israel (attacking Iran) being a threat to world peace, before he was against it.

Entelechy on February 20, 2007 at 9:59 PM

According to the update, he’s for Israel again.

Rick on February 21, 2007 at 12:40 PM

President Bush should threaten world peace by extending America’s nuclear umbrella to Israel, specifically promising to annhialate any country that attacks Israel with nuclear biological or chemical weapons.

Of course, the left would squeal liek stuck pigs, and teh Dems would have condemnatory resolutions plowed through both Houses of Congress inside of 24 hours.

Lancer on February 21, 2007 at 2:04 PM

He is so Toast. I didn’t think he had a shot anyway..but it’s amusing to see the nails go into his political coffin one by one.

Highrise on February 21, 2007 at 4:15 PM